I am seeing that there really is little time when creativity is not present. Could you not say that “decay” then becomes the opportunity for creativity to re-emerge for it is in that space that decay leaves that creativity can then rise and flourish again. Perhaps “decay” is simply an aspect of creativity and that it cannot really die.

You really got me thinking with this, as indeed decay is just another part of any process, and should it then not be a part of the creative process?

As I have come to define lately, especially through the work of David Bohm, creativity is, in essence, the connection of the individual with the whole, seeing those ‘hidden’ patterns and rearrange them to something more coherent (or maybe less coherent, if it had that intention).

So I don’t think that decay is a part of that. Decay, I think, happens when there is ‘form without meaning’, so that there is no longer a ‘selforganising’ process anymore.

I think that is what Bohm meant what happens too, when a society looses that selforganising ability, it has no other way to go, than to decay.

Somehow I have the feeling that this decay is another form of transformation, where you need ‘the other’ to get insight in ‘the self’, where the outside world has to be integrated. If that happens, the next step is more wholeness, but if it fails, the end step is decay.